The usual method of suppressing a deposition is by motion made in the manner required by statute. If no time is prescribed by statute, the motion to suppress should be made as soon as practicable after the defects have been discovered, and within a time before trial sufficient to enable the party taking the deposition to remedy the defect, or to take out a new commission.1 A motion to suppress at the time of trial comes too late.2 However, a motion made two days before the trial has been allowed.3

While the decisions are not uniform, owing to different statutory provisions, the following have been held to be ground for suppression: the refusal of a witness to answer several cross-interrogatories material to the issue propounded to him by the opposing party,4 even though he refused to answer under the advice of counsel;5 where the deposition disclosed confidential communications;6 where the officer before whom the depositions were taken improperly refused to allow one of the parties to the suit to cross-examine the witnesses; this may be remedied, however, through the issuance of a new commission which affords the wronged party the opportunity of cross-examining such witnesses;7 a fatal variance between the dedimus and the deposition in reference to the name of a witness;8 that the deposition was not sealed when delivered to the clerk of the court;9 where the depositions were taken before an official other than a commissioner,10 the failure to attach to, or accompany the deposition with a certificate from the clerk of a court of record in the place where the depositions

1 Toledo, etc., R. Co. vs. Brad-deley, 54 I11., 19; Hughes vs. Humphreys, 102 I11. App., 194; Hartwig vs. American Malting Co., 175 N. Y., 489; Bibb vs. Allen, 149 U. S., 481; Harris vs. Miller, 30 Ala., 221.

2 I11. Cent. R. Co. vs. Foulks, 191 I11., 57; Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. vs. Leysor, 89 I11., 43; Winslow vs. Newlan, 45 I11., 145; Dunbar vs. Gregg, 44 I11. App., 527; Catlin vs. Traders Ins. Co., 83 I11. App., 40; Christman vs. Ray, 42 I11. App., 111; Thomas vs. Duna-way, 30 Ill., 373.

3 Everingham vs. Lord, 19 I11.

App., 565. 4 Aultman & Taylor Mfg. Co. vs.

Joy, 9 I11. App., 32.

6 Clough vs. Kyne, 40 I11. App.,

234. 6 Thorp vs. Goeway, 85 I11., 611.

7 Zink vs. Wells, Fargo & Co., 72

I11. App., 605.

8 McCoy vs. People, 71 Rl., 111;

Scholes vs. Ackerland, 13 I11., 650.

9 See In re Noble's Will, 124 I11., were taken, or under the great seal of the State, showing the official character of the officer taking the depositions;11 failure to give sufficient notice of the taking of the depositions, as required by statute; where the depositions show that they have been tampered with; where it appears that the answers to the interrogatories were dictated or written out by an attorney in the cause,12 supported by proof of that fact; where the depositions were mailed to the attorneys 13 in the cause, and kept by them until the time of trial, instead of being returned to the clerk of the court out of which the dedimus issued; failure of the certificate to show that the person, before whom the witnesses were sworn, was duly authorized by law to administer oaths in the place where the depositions were taken; and, where required by statute, failure of the officer to endorse on the deposition the names of the parties to the suit.14

266; 164 I11., 391; Hughes vs. Humphreys, 102 I11. App., 194.

10 Kendall vs. Limberg, 69 I11., 355.